Posted
by
Zonk
on Saturday September 23, 2006 @01:51PM
from the politically-not-with-like-fireballs-and-stuff dept.

Joystiq's political column, courtesy of GamePolitics, talks this week about the bad rep games and gamers get in the popular press. They ask the question: 'Who will save the gamers?' Their answer: Daily Show host Jon Stewart. From the article: "Pennsylvania's Joe Pitts, mocked by Stewart for saying that violent games might affect ghetto children differently from affluent kids, actually protested -- after his opponent in a tough election campaign exploited The Daily Show fiasco for political gain. And that's precisely why Jon Stewart could be the savior of games. People tune in. For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch. Stewart, and colleague Stephen Colbert are seen as smart, funny, credible and relentlessly sticking it to the man. Elected officials, on the other hand, can't afford to come off as bumbling, low-tech and clueless. Naturally, Stewart helps them do so on a nightly basis."

Comedy may not be the best medium for the news, it is a great way to present opinions/editorials. It allows you to present an opinion on a political topic without looking like a raving lunatic. Stewart and Limbaugh both fit into this category in my mind. For one to form an opinion on the topics it IS better to have researched through more traditional news channels, but for many people there simply isn't time to read about every topic. Stewart et al. allow people to be both entertained AND informed, if a topic raised by these pundits is particularilly interesting or important, then people can go out and find more information as needed. The issues they raise will in general be the most interesting to their audience, and a large subset of "interesting" is importance and relevance to society (although not all interesting news is important or relevant, and a lot of important/relevant news is interesting.)

While comedic or entertainment based Op/Ed is not the best format for a sole source of news, it can serve a purpose in getting people interested and involved with the topics of the time. With modern media and the glut of information available, it would be overly cumbersome for every individual to research each and every news source on all the topics available.

You are correct insofar that I should have backed that assertion up with a reference. My apologies for being in too much in a hurry to post the link... a slight oversight,and I thank paradoks for posting the link below to cover my statement.
As for snake oil, one of my friends would kill me for selling snake products, but I might be able to convince her to part with some venom or anti-venom if you prove to have a need or license...

It's funny: Clinton's election campaign was one of the first in America to really recognize that idea (Clinton apparently believed in it quite strongly). And it obviously worked, given the way Clinton was able to do basically nothing and yet maintain non-stop popularity. And yet subsequent democratic party campaigns ditched the idea completely, while the GOP totally embraced it (where it once again works wonders, election after election). What do you call a group of people that fail to learn from their

What Clinton did was balance the budget, let U.S. citizens prosper. In contrast since George W. Bush came into office, all of the U.S. economic growth can be attributed to one field: Healthcare. Without healthcare the U.S. economy is totally stagnant and has been for six years.It certainly may look like Clinton did nothing but as a wise entity once said "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." There is rarely much need for a government to actually do stuff, most the t

Heh, that would be a great public service poster to plaster around DC: "Just Say No to new laws". Too many politicians giving in to peer pressure to be like the "cool" kids and pass needless legislation.

I'd certainly agree that Clinton was way ahead of Bush in terms of unshittiness, but I think that unshittiness is way too low a goal to be shooting for. An adequate government would be a nice start, and a mildy positive one would be a world-shattering achievement.

Leaving you to form your own justification for the action, which is pretty damn dangerous considering the justifications many American's used for their government's action towards Iraq proving faulty in the following months.

You have a point, but you didn't take it far enough.People form various justifications for actions.... which they've already decided to take. I.e., they wanted to support the war, so they invented a justification for it.

The justification is separate -- sometimes totally divorced -- from the motivation.

It's my personal opinion that such is the case of the War in Iraq; which is why you really don't put a dent in the pro-war camp by proving that there were no WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, etc. Those hammer away

The Daily Show consistently makes people aware of what is currently going on in the news. There's no less news than on the other news shows. There really isn't.

What there is less of is spin and propaganda from the talking heads. Where you'd get pro-Bush propaganda, you get some humour splashed in to break the tension so you don't explode when you see what's happening in the world.

No, it's not the best source of news. But it's the best news source in America.

Less spin!? The entire foundation of the show is based on "spin"! It's a satire!

Most of the other news shows are not pro-Bush. They generally show a slant to the opposite side, although that could be due to a real political slant or a tendency to carry bad news. Most likely, it's both.

Yes, it's satire but the humor they use makes its intent obvious (IMHO). And I would agree it actually has less spin than most programs. Remember a program's "spin" doesn't have to be over politics. Most of the 24-hour new networks spin events to make them seem more dangerous, exciting, or more newsworthy than the really are so they can boost their own ratings.

I'm sorry, but WTF?I don't live in the US, but even I can see that most news stations are firmly pro Bush. How else do you explain the free passes and non-quetsions that get askled of him. Compare the fallout the press gives based on importance of the subject matter: a blowjob and a war. If a false reason for war (and going all Stalin-esque with respect to secret police/torture/wiretapping) gets less attention than a blowjob, then you can pretty much say the press favours the latter side, dontchathink?

Dude, it was a personal opinion. Chill out.He said "he thought"... you don't need substantiation for that. It's an opinion. He said that his opinion was that Stewart's coverage of Israel was biased. You might disagree, but his original statement was factually correct and self-supporting.

Besides which, it's almost impossible to really bring any 'evidence' into this forum; unless you have a show transcript, and who has that? Plus I don't think that quoting part of the show would really be useful in discussin

CNN/Fox News/etc is the news with fear, manipulation, marketing, and a lot of general bullshit on top.

In the end you still get the same story, just different presentation. You also get a lot more news in 30 minutes of the dailyshow than you would 30 minutes of Fox News, where likely it would just be 30 minutes covering the same story.

True, but if you know something happened you can easily look up the details elsewhere (google news), which is hard to do when all you can find out from fox news is the details of the Jon Benet story, or whatever the current "Big Story" is.

John Stewart's show is easily as informative as most "real" news shows that people watch. Watch the local news down here in Atlanta some time then tell me Stewart's show isn't both more trustworthy and more to-the-point.

I'll grant you that there are much more respectable news outlets than "The Daily Show". However, in practice, given the alternatives of getting the news from ABC, NBC, or FOX, I'd rather people watch the "The Daily Show" instead. Personally, I've more or less given up on the televised media in the US. There is just too much money in it, and too much of an incentive to filter the information for the sake of ratings and public tastes. I get most of my news from "The Economist". Wading through it once a week is more work than watching NBC, but at least it won't fill my head with crap.

Where exactly does the author get his "facts" on this one? Sounds like some internet echo chamber nonsense to me. Everyone knows that the 16-34 demographic all watch 60 minutes and McLehrer's News Hour religiously.

Seriously though, I always cringe when I see stuff like that printed without some sort of source to back it up.

I'm a reporter. I know how The News are made. And believe me, they aren't "The News".

If you want to be well informed, stick to printed press and maybe some of the very best networks --the BBC comes to mind. But your local news crews are assholes and their bosses are idiots. Believe me, I know plenty of them.

Yup.:-) But the point is still valid. I blame that in several factors:-Getting a job as a TV reporter is more about good looks and "telegenics" than intelligence and critical skills. We print reporters can be as ugly as we like as long as we deliver results (all reporter geeks are print reporters).

-TV news enfatize the soundbite and quick story. You cannot build a decent report in 30 seconds; after a short time, TV reporters stop even trying; they arrive at the scene and get exactly as much material as th

"0% informational" means that one would never learn anything useful from a program. Stating that the Daily Show is "0% informational" is about as fair as stating that Fox News is "100% right-wing slant".

Both are quite obviously untrue if someone bothers to watch either the Daily Show or Fox News. Stating either shows a lack of perspective.

Yes, it is the only "news" program I watch, however, I also read the newspaper and listen to National Public Radio daily. The rest of the news programs are generally filled with a bunch of sensationalist bullshit that I don't care about. Just because I don't watch the 5:00 news doesn't mean I'm less informed, and I'd have to say that most of the Daily Show watchers are also fairly well informed, otherwise they wouldn't understand the majority of the jokes.

I used to do that, but now I dropped NPR. I stick to The Daily Show, a local newspaper, and the internet now. I began to feel the spin on NPR and see the effect it was having on me, and decided I didn't like that. While I still give NPR credit for (in my experience) never engaging in sensationalism and hyperbole I feel it is loaded with spin.

Right. Here's how the evening 'news' breaks down. its like 22 minutes sans commercials. Its streetcrime and weather mostly. Whatever hotbutton political nonsense is going on with no real facts or commentary, just a watered down AP article with some local biases added. On occasion there's soft-news garbage like "IS THE DRY CLEANERS RIPPING YOU OFF" and "TERRORISTS IN THE KITCHEN WHAT YOU CAN DO AGAINST ROTTING MEATS." No international news

Since when is the Daily Show news? I was under the impression that it was a comedy program. Given that they make up a great deal of stuff, they report on less actual news than the 5-page free paper that I pick up every day (just for the crossword), and don't report on ANYTHING unless they can derive a good laugh from it, I'd say that anyone trying to claim the Daily Show is a news program is off their rocker. It's a parody of news programs, not a news program itself.

Not to mention the fact that the jokes are INTENTIONAL on the Daily Show. The pathetic joke that CNN has evolved into is still played with a straight face--even as they introduce more brain-dead popularist tripe like "Nancy Grace" and "Glenn Beck," even as Lou Dobbs issues his latest rant, even as Wolf Blitzer reminds the audience once again that he's the best one-stop-shop for all the latest alarmist rhetoric.

Watch CNN? Are you mad? I watch the CBC (or, to be more precise: I read the CBC). The CBC is consistently quite good. Not too much fear-mongering, a great science page, etc. And I love the Daily Show. I think Jon Stewart and company are American heroes. But you can become informed about the world watching SNL or Jeopardy -- simply providing information doesn't make something a news source. By contrast, the local free paper informs remarkably few people (most people grab it just for the super-easy c

I think you missed my point... It wasn't that the Daily Show is a "News Show" but that it's appropriate for a "Fake News" Channel to consider a Fake "News Show" a competitor. It'd be unthinkable for "The National" to ever consider "This Hour has 22 Minutes" or "The Rick Mercer Report" to be competitors. That seems to be the difference between Canadian and American news.

Not much else to say really. If gamers go out and vote, and have a measurable effect, then yes, Stewart, Colbert, et al could be their spokespeople. Pot smokers too. Until they start voting no one will care what their spokespeople say.

But consider the past two American presidential elections. They have allegedly been so flawed and manipulated that it's doubtful that an increase in voting from video gamers, or any other group, would have any beneficial effect whatsoever. And it's even possible that such an unexpected influx of voters may wreak havoc with the manipulated vote tallying algorithms.

Yes, they can, but only if the angry don't realize they're a majority. I won't attempt to separate cause and effect here, but this definitely appears to be an important part of the strategy of America's current ruling party.

But consider the past two American presidential elections. They have allegedly been so flawed and manipulated that it's doubtful that an increase in voting from video gamers, or any other group, would have any beneficial effect whatsoever.

When the electorate is evenly split you get a tally that approaches the statistical margin of error in the count.

Scream fraud all you want. But nothing good can come from seeing your own candidate limping uselessly into the presidency. The victim of a recount that ended

I'm calling Bullshit here. I would MUCH rather have opposing parties in the executive and legislative branches. Especially if the alternative is control of both branches by the religious right. In that situation it would be better to have gridlock than what we have now.

It doesn't matter if they vote. What real difference does it make if Jackass 1 or Jackass 2 gets elected? We need candidates that the gamers and pot smokers actually want to get elected. Maybe we should get them to RUN instead, and voting will soon follow.

If you really believe that Al Gore would have led the US into a protracted series of wars in the Middle East, If you think Gore would have pulled out of the Kyoto accords, tried to change social security, would have given tax breaks where none were needed OR wanted, would have spent the budget surplus propping up failing airlines, then yes, you're right.If you think Gore would have pushed the Patriot Act then you are right.

But if you believe all that then you are sadly misinformed and need to educate yourse

Yeah, I mean someone that plays video games must be really stupid...and must have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And those pot smokers, good god - choosing to use an illegal drug that has virtually no negative effects and is safer than alcohol - man, you have to keep those guys at bay. I mean, imagine someone like, oh, I dunno, Carl Sagen running the show. What a *dummy*!

And imagine if you had a pot smoking gamer - holy shit, it would be the end of civilization.

Yeah, I mean, why have somebody completely uninterested in forcing their viewpoints and lifestyle on others involved in politics? Pssh, they'd probably even be against expeditionary wars for questionable value, the silly fuckers.

Right... So i can vote for either Christian Moralist on either the GOP or the Democratic ticket. Yeah, that's the ticket!

There are no real defenders of speech in the US outside of the ACLU and they dont seem interested in video games, they cant do everything you know. Its a powerless position and the best strategy is keep the pressure up on the censors until whenever. This is an issue the political parties pretty much agree on and just giving the knee-jerk

It's rather interesting how the ACLU alters the Bill of Rights to serve their agenda. They seem to have switched out the part about the right to bear arms with something entitling minorities to discriminatory treatment (affirmative action).

Yeah, if gamers are a majority. If not, then democracy will continue to favor the majority point of view, just like it does with pot. Pot smokers vote, they simply get outvoted by squares, and the square majority wins. Do you think gamers are a majority?

It all depends on what the issue being addressed is. If the problem's simply one of all the game playing public not seeing the threat that these politicians pose, and the comedy news shows expose them to it, then it could really help spread the message that they're under attack.

after getting to the "comments" page, I'm greeted with an ad for "Vice City Stories"

If you want to "save the gamers," why not begin with the games themselves?

You model a game on Miami's gangster culture.

But your development team is in northern Scotland, far removed from the racial and ethnic tensions within the city itself. You market the game at $50 a pop to suburban white males and wonder why that doesn't win you many friends.

You are an adolescent nimcompoop who thinks that Columbine would make a fun

I love Jon Stewart and I love the Daily Show. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. For 4 years, Jon Stewart was lambasting George Bush, ridiculing his policies, and Bush won with a greater margin of victory in 2004 than in 2000.Yes, most young people watch the Daily Show, but it doesn't translate very well in the polls. Say what you want, but the theory was that most younger people would vote Democrat, and that the entertainers had the ear of the young people, and true, the last election had a reco

Your statement makes very little sense. People who vote for Bush don't watch the Daily Show, or at least not many of them. You're talking as if the entire fucking country was watching Jon Stewart every weekday evening.

Yeah, well if the allegations of Vote Fraud are true, then there's a simple explanation for why he won with a greater margin of victory: Vote Fraud.Given the multitude of evidence to support a widespread effort to commit vote fraud, the partisan nature of some of the people in charge of the vote counting, and the discrepencies between independently predicted results and the actual results, it's completely reasonable to suspect that Vote Fraud may have been comitted.

Stewart, and colleague Stephen Colbert are seen as smart, funny, credible and relentlessly sticking it to the man.

These guys are comedians and entertainers. That isn't to say that they don't cover the news, but their real job is to entertain - not necessarily inform. They do twist words, take things out of context, and leave out large parts of stories. I do watch them, I think that both are hillarious, but credible? Sorry. If I want the real news with in depth information I'll go somewhere else.

It's an entertainment program, just like the actual news. As long as the "real news" programs compete for ratings, you won't get real news, you'll get the most sensationlist stuff that drives viewers to the show.

The reason these guys will save us is not because they're funny. It's because they represent that most popular of rights, the right to a dissenting opinion, and they do it on a grand platform. They are reminding us all that it's important to question authority, to poke fun at the talking heads, and to not sit idly by and absorb the crap that spews from the "News" shows. I hope they get more viewers, that they get on earlier, on more stations, with a wider audience. Because one thing I've observed, is that w

What I like, and what I think can be considered a vague benefit, is that it is news related comedy. I mean, there are hints of information in it. It's better than just watching MTV, E!, or NASCAR.

I will routinely hear stories on NPR on the way to work, and then wonder what The Daily Show or Colbert Report will do with it. I think the writers of those shows, and the way the hosts deliver it, are fantastic.

The sad thing is, Most shows that claim to be news shows aren't anymore. It's all horrific accidents and sensational crimes locally and fear and scandal mongering nationally, with very little international coverage outside of the daily bombing death toll in Baghdad. TV is way behind the internet for news these days, and it has always been way behind the newspapers.

However unlike most "news" programs, which contain less and less real news each year, The Daily Show isn't afraid to air clips of politicians at their most embarassing, which for some of the congress critters like Alaskan Senator and General Dickhead Ted Stevens, is practically every single time they open their mouths.

They also aren't afraid to put clips of what politicians are saying now and what they said two years ago contradicting themselves, unlike most "news" programs.

So despite being a comedy show, The Daily Show has much more power to keep politicians on their toes then regular news programs because they don't have the taboos of regular news programs.

I watch three TV Shows for my "television news," The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Any time I watch any other "news" program I find myself staring in disbelief at how far they have fallen.

The Daily Show is predominately political satire. It does not present information in a professional manner, however it is informative and through humor conveys political information. This stands in contrast to the "news" programs available on television which are predominately talk shows pretending to be news programs, and which The Daily Show happily jabs at regularly for the inanity of their contents. That is unless you stick to BBC World News on BBCA, but that doesn't help much for domestic matters.
Tel

For me, it's not primarily political satire. It's satire about the news, a lot of which is news about politics. Yes, sometimes it's about the subjects of the news, but the very best of the Daily Show for me is the stuff they do that lampoons the news biz itself, not the news, per se. Maybe this distinction is just in my brain, because none of the other posters seem to see it, either.

If young people still consider it news, then things are in really bad shape.

Here's one rather good observation I've heard over & over: The Daily Show and Colbert Report at have the integrity to admit they make stuff up. Not so true with some in the press. I guess it's just easier to photoshop until you have a story to sell, than it is to tell a real story.

I recall hearing statements to the effect of 'yellow' journalism being dead; but apparently it's still a viable and healthy industry.